Is “Russia” a Basic Historical Concept?

In the first part of my presentation I will show that, contrary to a widespread opinion, proper names can have a meaning and consequently can be historical concepts. I will argue that some geographical denominations such as the West, Europe, Eastern Europe, and names of countries indeed function as basic historical concepts. Similarly to the meaning of concepts expressed by common or collective names (such as ‘citizen’ or ‘proletariat’), the meaning of concepts designated by proper names is formed by means of stable links between these words and the elements of common knowledge that are routinely associated with them. In the same way as different interpretations of the past and future of capitalism form the internally conflicted meaning of this term, different versions of national history form the meaning of the word that refers to the corresponding country.

The second part of my presentation will illustrate this point by the example of the popular versions of Russian history that I will consider as aspects of the meaning of the concept of Russia. I will discuss in particular the tension between the concepts of Russia and the USSR in Soviet and post-Soviet historical discourse. I will explore some stable associations of these concepts with popular theories of Russian history. In particular, I will compare the logical structure of two formulas that I find typical of Soviet and post-Soviet historical discourse: ‘the first country of socialism’ (with regard to the USSR) and ‘sovereign democracy’ (with regard to Russia). I will show important differences in the temporal orientation of these concepts and discuss a hypothesis of a ‘Sattelzeit in reverse’ that I believe characteristic of the present-day world.